RAIL PLAN HEADED FOR LEGAL CLASH

the largest public works project in the state’s history — heads to a high-stakes showdown in court today.

A Sacramento County Superior Court judge is scheduled to hear arguments in a lawsuit that claims the project doesn’t comply with a statewide ballot measure approving $9.9 billion in bonds for the systems.

Since passage of Proposition 1A in 2008, expected costs for high-speed rail have increased significantly while polls show waning support.

The lawsuit was brought two years ago on behalf of farmer John Tos, rural homeowner Aaron Fukuda and Kings County, which has locked horns with bullet-train officials over planning of the system.

Attorneys Michael Brady and Stuart Flashman, representing Kings County, allege that the high-speed system violates numerous aspects of Proposition 1A, including requirements that the state have all funding and environmental approvals in place for an initial phase prior to starting construction.

Brady and Flashman said the measure included an elaborate set of requirements to protect taxpayers from funding a money-loser.

“By ignoring the statutory requirements, the authority has set in motion a project likely to become incomplete and stranded,” they argued in advance of the hearing.

Work on the project, which would eventually connect the state’s population centers with trains traveling at 220 miles per hour, is scheduled to begin this summer.

The plaintiffs say if Judge Michael Kenny rules the authority did not comply with the proposition, the next step would be to invalidate the funding plan and about $8 billion in appropriations.

“That would block the expenditure of high-speed rail bond funds and bring the authority’s project to an abrupt halt,” they said.

Although arguments are scheduled in court today, an immediate ruling is not expected.

The state attorney general’s office, representing the California High-Speed Rail Authority, contends that rail plans address all legal requirements, except that the authority certify all project-level environmental clearances. The state’s legislative counsel found that any defect in satisfying that requirement did not limit the Legislature’s authority to appropriate the funds.

“In other words, the Legislative Counsel concluded that the only consequence of the authority’s failure to certify that it had all project-level clearances for the (initial construction section) is that the Legislature might choose not to fund the requested appropriation,” the state says in its brief.

State lawmakers approved spending for high-speed rail last summer. The push came amid threats from federal officials to withdraw $3.3 billion in stimulus funds and hand it over to other states.

State bullet-train officials have settled other lawsuits relating to environmental certification. The fight over high-speed rail bonds is regarded as among the most pressing impediments.